Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Acecombat

British army

Recommended Posts

Quote[/b] ]

Peekaboo, I See You!

Amr Mohammed Al-Faisal  

 

Several months ago a senior officer in the British armed forces made a statement that I found rather odd. He in essence said that the British Army after considerable effort has been rendered incapable of operating independently of the US Army. The fact that this statement passed without comment in the British press speaks volumes about the state of affairs in that sceptered isle.

Suppose that a senior commander in the Saudi armed forces had said that the Saudi military policy was for its army to be unable to perform its duty without the support of — for example — the Syrian Army. How would the people of this country greet this news?

In the British case, we have an army composed of British citizens and paid for by the taxes of the British people, and yet it can only function in conjunction with a foreign army. This does not make any sense. Whose interests are really being served here?

I am reminded of a story from the 1950s. A British citizen called Kim Philby became a spy or mole for the Russians — or the USSR as it was known in those days.

Philby was recruited by the USSR while he was at university. When he left Cambridge he joined British intelligence and, step by step, reached higher and higher positions until he almost became head of that organization. All along he was a spy for the USSR.

Eventually, he was exposed and fled to Moscow, where he lived on as a highly respected patriot.

For you see, Philby was loyal, just not to Britain.

He was loyal to the USSR, which he served with considerable courage and resourcefulness for many decades.

The question that needs to be asked is: Is there someone like Philby in the British government serving US interests? Philby, by the way, was not alone. He had several accomplices, some of whom are known while others will never be known. Kim Philby was exposed, but is the American version still on the loose?

The British have a saying “Fool me once — shame on you, fool me twice — shame on me!â€

(Philby, interestingly, also had a Saudi connection. His father, an archaeologist who excavated at Najran and Madain Saleh, was a friend of King Abdul Aziz and lived for many years in the Kingdom, in time embraced Islam, adopting the name Abdullah. Two half-brothers of Kim Philby, Saudi citizens from birth, still live here.)

Source: ArabNews

What do you guys think?  smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing but pure speculation, where are the facts behind this article? The press is full of "what ifs".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah i thought so its crap.

But the interesting fact that was brought up was.

Are the UK armed forces able to handle a war on its own without US support? Considering ww2 where UK couldnt handle the war without US support.

Also now that UK is in its post colonial age its army has downsized too. UK is usually on th support role with th US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

depending on the scale and adversary, but in general i think we couldnt... there has been so many cut backs that im suprised they havent taken away our rifles and given us sticks and stones as a cheaper alternative rock.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of 100% pure BS  rock.gif  mad_o.gif

What about Sierra Leone to name but one...Did we go there holding the US' hand?  mad_o.gif

Yeah there are things which the British Armed forces don't have the capabilities to do, but the way you phrased that post was, IMO, foolish and flamebaiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering ww2 where UK couldnt handle the war without US support.

Eh? The British fought off the Germans quite well in that war rock.gif

There was no yank in sight when Rommel was routed in North Africa rock.gif Montgomery did it almost completely by himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the Brits did a fine job with what they had before the U.S. formally joined and started sending over equipment. The germans had a huge advantage as far as resources (steel, oil, ect) over Britain in the beginning, but were still not able to 'blitzkrieg' their way over britain like then did many other countries.

This nothing more than an editorial.

The problem I have with Arab News (I read them extensively during the llast IRaq conflict), is they mix editorials in with straight news without trying to make much distinction. Many of their storys were legitimate objective news, where, the facts might have been laid out in a slightly different manner, than say, CNN, they were still the same facts. Mixing together editorials along with news, tends to confuse stupid or naive people, which seem to be plentiful in all corners of the planet. sad_o.gif

This is a striking difference from Western (or at least U.S.) Journalism, where the Editorial section is the Editorial section and the News section is the News section. Yes western newspapers may have their biases (like the Los Angeles Times), but they at least label their editorials properly.

Despite all that, I like ArabNews. It's good to get a different perspective on the world, even if I mgiht get a bit mad at a story every once in awhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering ww2 where UK couldnt handle the war without US support.

Eh? The British fought off the Germans quite well in that war rock.gif

There was no yank in sight when Rommel was routed in North Africa rock.gif Montgomery did it almost completely by himself.

Agreed, also the US joined in 1944 was it? the war ended in 1945, and started in 1939. So about 5 years British fought by themself and 1 year with US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering ww2 where UK couldnt handle the war without US support.

Eh? The British fought off the Germans quite well in that war rock.gif

There was no yank in sight when Rommel was routed in North Africa rock.gif Montgomery did it almost completely by himself.

what about the M3 Grant and other american goodies ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've removed the bold and replaced with quotes, less bruising to the eyes smile_o.gif

People please stick to discussing the article as it relates to the current "conflicts". The whole WW2 thing has been done to "death", lots of people fought, lots of people died, who gets the most brownie points is offensive and irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that US troops were fighting in Africa too.

And US were supporting UK even before they started war with Japan.

But i'm afraid there is NO european army which could afford something bigger than local war without US support sad_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grizzlie unless you're a really really slow typer you should have seen my comment, please go speak to Mavis Beacon wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering ww2 where UK couldnt handle the war without US support.

Eh? The British fought off the Germans quite well in that war rock.gif

There was no yank in sight when Rommel was routed in North Africa rock.gif Montgomery did it almost completely by himself.

Agreed, also the US joined in 1944 was it? the war ended in 1945, and started in 1939. So about 5 years British fought by themself and 1 year with US.

1942. (Most Americans will tell you 1941, but as it was in December of that year, I always refer to it as '42)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well wouldnt the British be sstuck in a stale mate with Germany then?

U-boats were wreaking havoc on British seas there was no way britian could have defeated germany on its OWN.

That was the point being made that , UK is usually good in a supportive role and not in a singular offfensive one. As for someone mentioning Sierra leone then what are the brits fighting their ? Not a army with tanks and planes surely , rebels and guerilla's arent a army  rock.gif  , even the Irish are there too considering the size of their army.

@Toadlife it is a editorial wow_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grizzlie unless you're a really really slow typer you should have seen my comment, please go speak to Mavis Beacon  wink_o.gif

HAHA!

I remember that! good old Mavis.. didn't teach me how to type though, had some interresting games with it though.

I keep hearing the british army is the best at a lot of types of combat.. so I don't know what to beleive, but I do know that any comment by the US on our troops is going to be BS, as it makes Bush feel better to think we owe them something in order to run properly. wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, the British armed forces might not have the strength and resources that their US counterparts enjoy, but that doesn't make the British forces totally dependent on US help.

Britain still maintains or has updated most of the forces present during the falklands war, right? All except the V-Force bombers, for which Britain should have persued with the TSR.2 replacement.

IMHO, Britain, in fact, most of the worlds armed forces are at least resonably self-sufficient. The editorial is just someone else's speculative view of the US-UK alliance, and clearly, the UK has shown in the past that it is capable of fighting its own fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Badgerboy & AceCombat, if it wasn't for the last two posters this thread would have been closed because of you two. Discuss the topic in relation to modern conflicts, not about WW2 please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, the British armed forces might not have the strength and resources that their US counterparts enjoy, but that doesn't make the British forces totally dependent on US help.

Britain still maintains or has updated most of the forces present during the falklands war, right? All except the V-Force bombers, for which Britain should have persued with the TSR.2 replacement.

IMHO, Britain, in fact, most of the worlds armed forces are at least resonably self-sufficient. The editorial is just someone else's speculative view of the US-UK alliance, and clearly, the UK has shown in the past that it is capable of fighting its own fight.

I heard a rumour Concorde was originally designed to be a Nuclear-weapons delivery system.. but they gave up, along with the TSR.2 and someone saw passenger carrying abilites in it...

Though I think this could be Bullshit, as france was involved..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article's tosh because it misinterprets the facts. The British armed forces have been reliant, to a degree, on the US since the end of WW2 when we were faced by a big, aggressive power not too far away with a shattered country to rebuild. Our own nuclear deterrent was not enough without the US multiplying it, we wouldn't stand a chance against the Red Fleet on our own, and we only commanded one of the three army groups in West Germany and even that had to be bulked out periodically by US troops. But we are less reliant on the US now and more reliant on Europe than ever before. If you look at Kosovo, yes we worked with the US but we worked a lot more closely with the Dutch, French and other Euro nations. Our armed forces are deficient in a number of glaring areas - submarines, projected air power, strategic bombing to name a few - but for less dramatic, cataclysmic, war-to-end-all-wars type confrontations we are not doing so bad (when our soldiers have boots).

poi, good article in the Times today about designs for new modular ships for the RN. One large hull transports 4-6 smaller high speed attack boats that are controlled remotely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Sure, the British armed forces might not have the strength and resources that their US counterparts enjoy, but that doesn't make the British forces totally dependent on US help.

Quote[/b] ]

IMHO, Britain, in fact, most of the worlds armed forces are at least resonably self-sufficient. The editorial is just someone else's speculative view of the US-UK alliance, and clearly, the UK has shown in the past that it is capable of fighting its own fight.

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing britain needs the US for is logistics support. The US has huge capacity to move units and kit around. The UK (and most other countries) do not.

I think that is what the officer was referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×